list_vehicle_assemblies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It notes only that 'geometry is not preset-specific' and gives an ordering constraint, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, idempotency, or scope of the listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no padding, but the leading fragment is not front-loaded with a clear statement of the operation, which hurts scannability. Reasonably sized but structurally awkward.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description does sketch the resource and a follow-on workflow. It still leaves gaps about what the listing actually returns and when this tool is the right entry point.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The schema coverage is 100% yet empty, so nothing more is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name carries the verb ('list') but the description opens with a bare noun phrase, 'Reusable controls, required ID bindings and gate definitions,' without ever stating that it returns a listing of vehicle assemblies. It conveys what an assembly contains but does not clearly frame the operation or distinguish it from siblings like list_workbenches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides workflow guidance for adjacent tools ('Place any required gates using edit_parts, then bind queried IDs with apply_vehicle_assembly'), which implies a sequence. However, it never states when to call list_vehicle_assemblies itself versus alternatives, so usage is only inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.